The High Court dismissed an application to condone a 90-day delay in filing a criminal revision under Cr.P.C. 397/401, finding no sufficient cause. Consequently, the revision petition challenging the framing of charges was also dismissed as time-barred.
The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the criminal revision petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1266/2017
Harkaram S/o Shri Shaitan Ram Jat, R/o Village Rohini, Tehsil And District Nagaur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Abhijeet Joshi |
|---|---|
| Mr. Kapil Bissa | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. L.R. Upadhyay, P.P. |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Order
23/10/2018
This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 23.03.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nagaur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘appellate court’) in Sessions Case No.171/2016, whereby it has ordered for framing charges against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 302/34 of IPC.
The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner with a delay of 90 days. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer for condoning the said delay has been filed, wherein it is mentioned that the delay in filing the revision petition has been caused because certified copy of the order impugned was received late and the petitioner was not aware about the remedy of filing revision petition. It is noticed that the application for obtaining certified copy of the order impugned was
(2 of 2)
[CRLR-1266/2017]
filed on 04.08.2017 and the certified copy was prepared on 05.08.2017, however, the same was obtained on 21.08.2017.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the application for condonation of delay, I do not find any good reason to condone the delay in filing this criminal revision petition, hence, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed.
Consequently, this criminal revision petition is also dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
Taruna
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 90 days in filing the criminal revision petition should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Whether the criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. be admitted in view of pronouncement of limitation.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Harkaram S/o Shri Shaitan Ram Jat
State Of Rajasthan
Vijay Bishnoi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Vijay Bishnoi
